Talk:Amputation
The 24 connection is obvious and it's certainly a respectable effort, but I don't believe it's a necessary page. If we keep this page we might as well make pages for "murder", "surgery", "car", etc. Unless it's some object or title that very specifically pertains to the show, I generally don't see the use for defining common nouns at this wiki. 02:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC) :I was thinking more along the lines of the suicide article, albeit the latter one is obviously more common in the show. As for your other examples, I don't think "amputations" are as common as any "surgery" or as mundane as a "car", and the Wiki already has an article detailing "murders". But it's okay if it's eliminated. Thief12 03:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC) :: Where as I totally disagree, Rook. I absolutely love pages like this. I think it's cool to see all the examples of things like suicide or dogs having appeared in the 24''verse. I'd totally be up for a page about cars. As long as they stay totally IU, there's no rule against creating articles for any real-world items. I happen to really like them. --proudhug 03:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC) ::: This is a good page, granted. I'm just worried about stuff like "car" that will ''never be completed as a matter of course, and doesn't meet even my most basic notability criteria. Amputations, suicides, dogs, and a few of the others are noteworthy. Cars, hats, shoes, gloves, human speech, and the endless supply of other things that also happened to appear on the show are certainly not.. and it's these things that I'm really worried about. A reasonable concern, no? 00:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC) :: I understand your concern, but I still don't entirely agree. Sure, it seems silly at first to create an article for something like shoes, but as long as it stays IU, I think it's a neat endeavour, notable or not. I'm certainly not advocating that people start making articles for every single object ever seen on the show, but if at least one person finds it interesting enough to create an IU article for something, then I don't think we can dispute its usefulness. --proudhug 00:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC) I don't think we can make articles on the basis of just one person finding information interesting. I know there are loads of users who find the Lost/24 connection interesting but we won't make a page for it for reasons that have been discussed before. I know the reason for that is because it would be OU, but its the same as how we won't have an article on "Jack Bauer during Redemption" just because one person finds it interesting. If one person found it interesting to have an article named "Slacks worn on Day 4" I don't think it would be a very good idea. --SignorSimon (talk/ / ) 17:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC) :: I guess I should've specified that I mean IU articles, only. As long as something is named IU, it's worth of an article on Wiki 24, provided at least one person finds it interesting and that it contains only IU information. The reason we don't have a page for "Jack Bauer during Redemption" is because all of the information that would go there can be placed on the "Jack Bauer" page, not because it's uninteresting. "Slacks worn on Day 4" would be unnecessary for the same reason. A page for "slacks" with a Day 4 heading would suffice, if someone wanted to create an article for that. But like I said, I'm not advocating articles about everything, just that I don't think we'd be justified in disputing them. --proudhug 18:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC) ::: Agreed for the most part... even though I'll probably find a reason to dispute common noun pages anyway. Also, kudos on "Slacks worn on Day 4"; I almost spat on my screen in surprise laughter! 01:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC) My motivation for creating the article was to have a neat, informative, encyclopedic article about something that has been present several times in the show. I believe that the purpose of a wiki like this is to link articles that have pertinence in the 24verse and I believed this one filled that requisite. If I were to argue about more irrelevant articles, I would've brought articles like dogs, the Bible or Qur'an, TrueBlue pregnancy test or some others that have a lot less pertinence or relevance to the show than this one. But I wouldn't argue because I think that most nouns would be valid, as long as the content is related to the show, and that criteria is shown in articles like dogs or the Bible. Some time ago, I created an article about the IRS because it was on the "Wanted pages" list (due to it being in the US government sidebar) and someone (I don't know if it was BlueRook or Proudhug) deleted it and told me they did because it was all OOU information and had no 24 connection, and I agreed. So, how would deleting Amputation fit that criteria? considering that it has had not one (like the TrueBlue pregnancy test) or two (like dogs), but 6 instances in the show? Thief12 15:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC) This was a Research File, actually. That's how it got here. OneWeirdDude 02:32, October 2, 2010 (UTC) :I don't think I get what you mean. Thief12 03:52, October 3, 2010 (UTC) ::On the Fox.com website, before the change when Season 7 started, this was the Research File for the Season 3 finale. OneWeirdDude 18:13, October 3, 2010 (UTC)